Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

New Social Security benefit cap to hurt hundreds of thousands, including disabled people.

equationgirl said:
I don't know what your problem is right now, but your behaviour on this thread is pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...
I made a funny hyperbolic remark and you got the arse. You are not going to get what you want, so I am happy to cease this exchange as it is tiresome for everyone to witness.
 
Orang Utan said:
I made a funny hyperbolic remark and you got the arse. You are not going to get what you want, so I am happy to cease this exchange as it is tiresome for everyone to witness.
Click to expand...
It wasn't funny.

You equated my posts with hounding people to death yet you express surprise that this pissed me off and now claim you were being funny?

Really?
 
Orang Utan said:
Yes. Give it a rest.
Click to expand...
No.

I'm offended because I've spent considerable time working with claimants on their applications over the past years, applications that are sometimes denied and that cause extreme hardship whilst the appeals process rumbles on.

So for you to post what you did was extremely hurtful.

But hey, it was just a joke. Right?
 
Tell you what mate, no need to apologise, but why don't you just fuck off this thread? The title should tell people what the subject under erm, debate is. The latest installment of austerity, class and psychological warfare is on it's way.
Kitty's stuff and some other posts were well worth reading and following up on.
Yours were a pile of flaming crap, IMO
 
Smoking kills said:
Tell you what mate, no need to apologise, but why don't you just fuck off this thread? The title should tell people what the subject under erm, debate is. The latest installment of austerity, class and psychological warfare is on it's way.
Kitty's stuff and some other posts were well worth reading and following up on.
Yours were a pile of flaming crap, IMO
Click to expand...

Thanks. Actually, Patrick Butler from the Guardian reads and rates my work. He also posts them on Twitter. Dr Frances Ryan is also fab, she writes a lo on the terrible impact of the welfare "reforms" and disability issues. She also cited a couple of my articles in the New Stateman and Guardian last year, or earlier this year. They're two of a very very few journalists I actually have time for. This said, I started writing about what I do because of the woeful gaps in mainstream media coverage on public interest issues. I don't get any pay for it, but I am driven to try and raise awareness as best I can.

I was threfore rankled to have a researched piece dismissed as "clickbait". as I said, I read the contract and specs, quoted from them. If that first leg of the research were genuinely about "helping" carers and disabled people, it would have actually ENGAGED with them rather than studdying their eye movements and body language hidden behind a two way mirror. Research methodology matters, and I am not the only person concerned about this. The British Psychological Society have also flagged up ethical and methodological concerns.
 
smokedout said:
Some of the trials carried out by the DWP have been mandatory, but this one isn't, in fact people get paid. It has nothing to do with any previous nudge unit work, it is nothing to do psychology at all, it is not the participants being tested but the new IT systems. The eye-trackers are used to measure where people look on the screen, this is normal testing for any large scale public IT interface. Do you want them to launch online services without first testing whether people can actually use them or not?

If you'd read the contract notes you would have known this, if you have the integrity you claim you will publish a retraction/clarification of what these tests actually are. You might also change the claim the nudge unit recommended the increased sanction regime, the link you point to is actually the CESI think tank, and the increased sanctions regime was proposed by Labour in 2008.
Click to expand...

This isn't "testing if people can use IT services", it is the users who being tested. I'd expect that some kind of DIALOGUE with the users would be a part of this, you know, asking them about how they findthe product/service. But that isn't a part of it. This IS to do with the context I have outlined, it hasn't happened in a vacuum or in isolation from other trials and policies. I DID read the contract notes and quoted from them. As for my integrity, well let's keep the personal insults out of the debate, and act like mature adults, shall we. I will not be publishing a retraction because I haven't written anything that is untrue. The increased sanctions regime was part of the welfare reforms in 2012. CESI AND the nudge unit, since the theory mentioned - a cognitive bias called "loss aversion" is entirely a nudge theory, originating from the nudge unit. Now stop trying to tell me what I may and may not write.
 
KittyJ said:
This isn't "testing if people can use IT services", it is the users who being tested. I'd expect that some kind of DIALOGUE with the users would be a part of this, you know, asking them about how they findthe product/service. But that isn't a part of it. This IS to do with the context I have outlined, it hasn't happened in a vacuum or in isolation from other trials and policies. I DID read the contract notes and quoted from them. As for my integrity, well let's keep the personal insults out of the debate, and act like mature adults, shall we. I will not be publishing a retraction because I haven't written anything that is untrue. The increased sanctions regime was part of the welfare reforms in 2012. CESI AND the nudge unit, since the theory mentioned - a cognitive bias called "loss aversion" is entirely a nudge theory, originating from the nudge unit. Now stop trying to tell me what I may and may not write.
Click to expand...

And also, "tougher sanctions" (more than the 2 weeks it was back then, and that was usually for "serious" non compliance) is not the same as extending them to previously protected social groups, such as lone parents and disabled people, not is it the same as extending them to 3 months and up to 3 years as the tories did.
 
Hate these arguments/tensions that develop between people who do great work for the most vulnerable on social security(Kitty/Smoked out), and there are sadly not that many
 
KittyJ said:
This isn't "testing if people can use IT services", it is the users who being tested. I'd expect that some kind of DIALOGUE with the users would be a part of this, you know, asking them about how they findthe product/service. But that isn't a part of it. This IS to do with the context I have outlined, it hasn't happened in a vacuum or in isolation from other trials and policies.
Click to expand...

This is called speculation, you should make clear when you are speculating. If you have any evidence this involves the Behavioural Inisghts Team/Nudge Unit, that it is a part of a wider body of psychological research, or that it is anything other than what it says it is which is testing usability of new digital interfaces then you should show it. If you believe such evidence exists then find it, and then write your story.

I DID read the contract notes and quoted from them. As for my integrity, well let's keep the personal insults out of the debate, and act like mature adults, shall we. I will not be publishing a retraction because I haven't written anything that is untrue. The increased sanctions regime was part of the welfare reforms in 2012. CESI AND the nudge unit, since the theory mentioned - a cognitive bias called "loss aversion" is entirely a nudge theory, originating from the nudge unit. Now stop trying to tell me what I may and may not write.
Click to expand...

The thurst of the whole piece, which implies that this is some kind of mandatory psychologcial testing is untrue, in my opinion, and not supported by any evidence beyond your assumptions. You cherry picked information, such as implying this is coercive when actually they are recruiting paid volunteers, and suggesting that eye movement scanning is some kind of psychological woo rather than the normal way that website usability is tested. You've completely bent it out of shape to fit a narrative you decided on and ignored any evidence that didn't support and as such have misled your readers completely. As such you should publish a retraction, but you won't, that speaks to your integrity.

And it was Labour who introduced sanctions for disabled people and lone parents.
 
treelover said:
Hate these arguments/tensions that develop between people who do great work for the most vulnerable on social security(Kitty/Smoked out), and there are sadly not that many
Click to expand...

There are several perhaps coincidentally pro-Labour blogs and websites who have continually misrepresented or misunderstood the various activities of the DWP and published wildly speculative stories that often turn out to be untrue. When this has been shown to them they have refused to back down, or publish corrections, instead entrenching their positions and insisting what they say is true in spite of over-whelming evidence. Because these sites present themselves as authorititive, or more often a new fearless form of journalism telling the stories the mainstream media don't, they are trusted by some people as such misinformation becoes widely distrubuted. As well as being a pain in the arse, it is actively harmful to get this stuff wrong when it comes to things like social security policy, there's enough understandable fear and anxiety out there without a load of often complete horseshit being piled on top.

Whilst I don't doubt they are well meaning, the motivation that underlies this seems to be generating web traffic. Sensationalist stories about the benefits system often go viral. In the case of The Canary that is being done to earn money. For the others I get it, getting loads of hits is addictive, there's pressure to pump out new stuff all the time, and many temptations to cut corners or make more of something than it really is. But it's not helpful, and it's not good journalism.
 
There is also a huge cut for single people living outside the Greater London Borough, from £350 per week to £257.69 per week, a cut of up to £92.31 per week.

-----------------------------
The current cap is:

  • £500 per week (£26,000 per year) if you’re in a couple, whether your children live with you or not
  • £500 per week (£26,000 per year) if you’re single and your children live with you
  • £350 per week (£18,200 per year) if you’re single and you don’t have children, or your children don’t live with you
-----------------------------

Caps from autumn 2016
From autumn 2016 the cap will depend on where you live in the UK.

Outside Greater London
If you live outside a Greater London borough, the cap will be:

  • £384.62 per week (£20,000 a year) if you’re in a couple, whether your children live with you or not
  • £384.62 per week (£20,000 a year) if you’re single and your children live with you
  • £257.69 per week (£13,400 a year) if you’re single and you don’t have children, or your children don’t live with you
Inside Greater London
If you live in a Greater London borough, the cap will be:

  • £442.31 per week (£23,000 a year) if you’re in a couple, whether your children live with you or not
  • £442.31 per week (£23,000 a year) if you’re single and your children live with you
  • £296.35 per week (£15,410 a year) if you’re single and you don’t have children, or your children don’t live with you
-----------------------------

Benefit cap - GOV.UK
 
How will these caps impact on sick and disabled people, i think ESA support level and DLA is not included, but some SADP have to pay very large rents, HB is included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
The Liberal Democrats/Lliberals have been deprived of Thousands of Seats
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
tim
tim
mentalchik
Mentally ill people to get 'job coach' visits...
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
4K
mentalchik
mentalchik
YouSir
Social Media and Current Events
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
tim
MPs beating people up.
2 3 4 5
Replies
139
Views
5K
Hotel Chocolate
H
R
Oceangate's Titan. The Bayesian yacht. Why do the deaths of rich people matter more than poor people?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
258
Views
9K
PTK
PTK
Back
Top Bottom